Marocc

It's not pro Islamic. It's just Islamic. The Qur'an says none may touch it but those who are pure.

You forgot you already said that.

If you can't refute it you can just pretend you didn't see it or copy past from thereligionofpeace. I don't mind.

It's the Qur'an that was quoted back then twice for you. You interpret it literally right, because it makes no sense? I mean, because that's the way it's 'supposed to be' despite 3:7. Your literal interpretation fails, again. Wasn't that a little hypocritical?

No. I don't understand what makes you think you have a clue what you're talking about when you clearly get all your misinformation from propaganda. if it's from a Christian, jew, atheist or a person who doesn't say anything about it this way or that - it's not credible information.

Does your memory still contain what happened about 15 hours ago?

This is about the English language.

Elaborate.

When you say 'Islam's teachings on apostasy' in plural, it sounds like you ought to start reading books, but the short story from the majority of today's scholars, is as follows: The Qur'an prescribes no earthly punishment for apostasy alone. The hadiths mention it and at times directly; 'if anyone changes their religion then kill him.' But seeing as this is controversial to the Qur'an it cannot be right. At the time of revelation the Muslims were living in a different kind of society in which apostasy could at times be considered high treason for which there was and is a death penalty if the judge says so. But not all apostates were killed at the time. Sometimes they were gives lesser punishments and at times pardoned altogether. And women were never killed because they don't take part in fighting to begin with - they were not considered a threat to the community. However, they could be imprisoned instead.

As commanded? What was my reaction? You know what an oath is?

There is no modern age for a true religion. You either follow the religion or you don't. With religion comes faith. I believe in Allah (Subhaanahu wa ta'ala) and that what he has commanded is good and right. Are you planning on attacking the Muslim ummah? If not, you don't need to mind the verses, they have assured nothing but peace toward you.

But you see, Muslims still practice their religion. What you have against that which you call violence is nothing but a sentiment.

You may mean what you like but there is no such thing. It's like what you non-Muslims say "Liberal Muslim", "moderate muslim", "moderate Islam". Silly words with no meaning. You are free to use them, but don't expect your speculations on false premises to lead into correct conclusions. Clearly they haven't so far.

No,.... It wouldn't.

What do you mean?

No it's you.

The same as at any other time.

There is no such thing as mainstream Islam.

Punishment doesn't have to exclude forgiveness. Muslims want forgiveness from Allah (Subhaanahu wa ta'ala).

Good one.

Not "last words". You have last words, Allah (Subhaanahu wa ta'ala) doesn't.

You're seeing DoP triple I guess.

I wouldn't. I call that shirk - associating someone with Allah (Subhaanahu wa ta'ala). In Islam it is the greatest sin. However, the Christians don't have, in the common languages they speak, such words. The middle Easterns do. They repeat them all the time and it needs not be in any correlation to their religiousity. Farther more, the reason the terrorists shout it is to agitate people. They want you to hate Muslims. They want war, but these are just sparks.

The final and supreme authority for Muslims is the Qur'an, and the sunnah. Which answers perfectly clearly to all your questions above. The concequence when a Muslim doesn't live rightly by the Qur'an and the Sunnah is at worst that they will be outside the fold of Islam - a non-Muslim.

It would be a mistake to assume that just because someone says God is great while they do something means they have religious reasons.